Is there a scenario in which nativeamericans(incas/mayas/etc)
Could have won against european people?
Or even in the best of circumstances(maybe if they were more developed, etc), viruses and illness would have always played a determining factor in conquist?
Highly doubt the europeans would have had the logistics to beat them if they didn't all betray eachother and help the invaders. If they had allied and fought them together, no chance we would have succeeded that early.
its called Bolivia
>>498331
>we
>Get small pox an shit from the vikings
>Have enough time to developed disease resistance
>Paleo-indians didn't kill all the horses and mega fauna
>Fight Europeans with cavalry
>>497747
A lot of people don't realize this, but the Inca and Aztec were relatively new empires by the time the Europeans showed up. Both of them had only started their empire building about 70 years before Columbus. Say Spain never finances the Colombus expedition and the discovery of the Americas is put off for another 100-200 years.
The Aztecs and Inca would've had much more time to consolidate and develop their empires. While I doubt they could've completely avoided European influence, and probably would've large amounts of land and resources, I don't think they would have been as utterly crushed as they were in our timeline. Perhaps they live on as semi-independent European puppet states similar to British India.
>>501739
Or they would have collapsed be themselves, the Incas were in a civil war and the Aztecs were alienating all the people around them with they gory shenaningans like priest dancing with the skins of daughters of chieftains or wagin war to the Tlaxcalans only for sacrifices.
>>497747
>Could have won against european people?
In case they had equal by force weapons and armours and horses and united under one goverment - possible, with help of fortune, yes.
>>502503
Yeah, they honestly weren't normal at all. North American Indians were alright though.
>>502593
They were just archaic as fuck, nothing "cool" about that.
>>499506
They wouldn't have even needed cavalry if they had smallpox resistance.
>>502503
That sounds badass as shit. I wish they'd won.
>>502791
They were rekt hard be cavalry, heck the Spaniards won the allegiance of the Tlaxcalans after beating them hard thanks to they armor, steel weapons and cavalry, the later being key in atacking weak points in the enemies lines and specially making great carnage after a unit retreat.
>>502593
Civil wars are normal.
>>502793
If you find badass psychotic behavior you should join ISIS.
>>503179
Didn't the horse decapitated in one blow died facing the Tlaxcalans?
>>504235
The otomi allies defending the frontier of the Tlaxcalans, and was a horse being disembowled in one stroke of Macana, the raider had to sacrifice the poor horse if I recall well.
Unless for some bizarre reason no one finds out about the New World for some 1,000 years, no.
North America is shit out of luck no matter what. All Central and South America civilizations were just getting into something akin to the bronze age in the Old World. Against men with firearms. Even if Columbus and all future explorers die at sea, sooner or later someone is going to realize there's something out west, and then shit hits the fan double hard.
The best bet, as far as the United States, would be for the Sioux to stop being genocidal monsters for just five minutes to ally with other native tribes and halt Western expansion, but even then that would only buy them time. Maybe Oklahoma could have actually become the "Native State".
You have to remember that despite what the facebook normie memes say, there weren't a whole lot of Indians, especially in North America. Our ancestors ground them out through sheer numbers and economics.
>>499420
That's after they invaded, and the Natives assimilated and their culture annihilated.
I think OP is implying was there someway to have preserved their culture/civilization and fended off the initial colonization.
>>503841
Westerners, Israelis and Sauds bank-rolled ISIS so whatever.
>>502713
Aztecs are North American "Injuns". That guy you were replying to is an idiot.
>>497747
No
>>502503
The Inca civil war was caused from the smallpox outbreak from European contact. No European contact, no civil war.
>>501739
Actual contact couldn't have been prolonged that long. The Portuguese independently discovered Brazil only a few decades after Columbus while they were sailing around Africa, and Basque fishermen were slowly getting closer and closer to Newfoundland following whales.
>>504353
The Sioux actually tried to rally allies near the end, but by then it was too late. No one wanted to work with them because they thought it would be a trap.
>You have to remember that despite what the facebook normie memes say, there weren't a whole lot of Indians,
I don't see how you figure that. North America had agriculture that could support massive populations and that agricultural package went as far north as New England before the Europeans came.
>>504551
Actually the Basques were salting/drying cod in north america since ancient times, being basques and all they didn't talk about it to anyone.
>>504559
There's no solid evidence for it like there is for the Norse attempt at settlement, so right now it's only theoretical.
Right now the only two groups we know for sure that contacted pre-Colombian America are the Norse and Siberian/Aleut tribes that boated over the Bering Strait.
There's good historical evidence that the Basque may have come around now and then, and good genetic evidence that the Polynesians contacted South America, but neither of them are known for sure yet.
>>502593
>Yeah, they honestly weren't normal at all
yes they were, they did everything everyone else did they just didn't fuck around and did it on a bigger scale.
In North America smallpox epidemics wiped out something like 90% of the native population. Additionally, native americans had yet to invent the wheel (for tool/moving purposes) when Europeans began to settle Jamestown and Plymouth. There was just never going to be any effective defense from them.
>>504573
How were Azteks normal?
>>504825
They sacrificed people.
>>504825
They weren't, they were weird and stupid looking, that's why no one bought them.
>>497747
Yes, in a magical world where the natives shot laser beams from their eyes which turned the evil white devils into gold. Then Europe exploded and the native americans lived in beautiful harmony with nature forever the end.
grow up.
>>504866
or you know, actually implemented large scale use of bronze, got writing down to facilitate communication and were culturally unified. If the Incas had gone Full Roman they probably would have whooped more ass, as it was they managed to establish hold out states, had they been slightly more unified and competent there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have succeeded in driving the Spanish out or completely resisting colonization for a few centuries of stagnation as the Europeans turned them into a New World China complete with a pseudo-Opium war.
Or maybe a New World India would be more accurate.
>>504572
Polynesians too
>>504891
...Are you retarded?
>>497747
The only scenario is one where the new world had been in contact with asia from the beginning. If Europe had been isolated would they have invented writing or paper or guns? Probably not.
Native americans where fucked from the beginning, just like Australians. Any contact with the old world would have been devastating the moment it happened.
>>504934
>If Europe had been isolated would they have invented writing or paper or guns?
They didn't invent paper or guns, they did make their own kind of alphabet though.
>>504943
After they became acquainted with the concept of writing, which they didn't invent.
>>504934
>The only scenario is one where the new world had been in contact with asia from the beginning
Honestly I like to fantasize about that.
What would an Asia-America trade network look like? Would China have established colonies in Alaska and gradually explored southwards or would Han Chinese just start immigrating on their own and immediately set up their own fiefdoms technically independent of China but paying tribute for merchant rights.
Would they have coexisted with the natives? Interbred? Driven them off into the hills? Would an "Alaska Shogunate" have started up or a "Californian Dynasty"?
>>504886
>or you know, actually implemented large scale use of bronze, got writing down to facilitate communication and were culturally unified.
But if the natives did that the Europeans would have perfected jet propulsion and aviation. Also they would have nukes. Why? It's magical thinking, I don't have to explain shit.
> resisting colonization for a few centuries
that is laughably absurd. The natives got fucked by disease and were hundreds of years away from combating that. Additionally, the weapons and armor were extremely poor in comparison to European weapons and armor. Additionally, no cavalry or effective way to defend against cavalry.
Best case scenario - absolute best - is they piss off the Spanish long enough to get cut up by the other European powers and South America is today a hodgepodge of broadly european colonialism instead of Portuguese and Spanish colonialism.
> a New World China complete with a pseudo-Opium war.
China was far more advanced than the new world and is incomparable to it.
>>504968
Fuck you in my head canon they did.
>>504974
>that is laughably absurd.
Pizarro's and Cortes' strengths were in using native troops not in being Spanish god man that crushed dozens with their dicks by turning left.
Take that away through a unified Incan Empire and there's a big problem.
>Additionally, no cavalry or effective way to defend against cavalry.
Incas developed cavalry forces.
>>504974
>no cavalry or effective way to defend against cavalry.
because pikes are impossible to them I guess. Were you born a racist or did you have to work at it?
>>504891
I mentioned Polynesians.
>>504994
See bro, that's why I asked if he was retarded.
I'm your bro like that bro.
>>504886
>If the Incas had gone Full Roman they probably would have whooped more ass
The Inca has already "gone Full Roman" and were the closest equivalent to them in the whole New World. They were famed for their roads that they used to tie together a massive empire (the largest in the world at the time of their height).
>>497747
If you suscribe to the migrating population of America theory, old-worlders had a massive head start due to being settled centuries before new-worlders, I think the deck was stacked from the beggining.
>>505008
they weren't as meticulous or militarily as organized as the Romans, that's important. Their simple lack of writing made long distance communication problematic and unspecific and made precise communication impossible. That alone put them far behind the Romans in terms of military efficiency.
>were the closest equivalent to them in the whole New World
That's not saying much tbhlad.
>>505017
>they weren't as meticulous or militarily as organized as the Romans
They also weren't as unified.
>>504979
>Pizarro's and Cortes' strengths were in using native troops not in being Spanish god man that crushed dozens with their dicks by turning left.
I don't dispute that. The Incan's fell FAR easier than the Spanish expected. The conquistador expeditions were not meant to take over the entire fucking continent.
However, the exploratory expeditions undertaken by one European power are not the full sum of European military might. Of course I'm not saying that the Europeans would have allied together to fight the natives - Europeans were too petty - but they would have cut it up like Africa, best case scenario.
>Take that away through a unified Incan Empire and there's a big problem.
For one country, yes. For all of Europe or just the big seafaring powers, no.
>because pikes are impossible to them I guess. Were you born a racist or did you have to work at it?
I never mentioned race. You are clearly the racist here. A spear does not equal cavalry defense. They had no effective way to defend against them because they had not encountered them before.
>>505017
Their quipu acted as a sort of pseudo-writing that they could keep records with.
>>505024
It's not as precise as writing and only served to keep records, not to communicate that the enemy are 5 miles away, their horse monsters number 2 dozen, half are injured and another dozen of their infantry are sick with cholera and the enemy commander is prone to bouts of anger.
How about a world were the Mediterranean gets Islamized hard into a single caliphate, making the search of an Atlantic route to India unnecessary?
>>497747
The Aztecs were conquored by allying with natives who hated the aztec dominance. The mayans were betrayed by a few of their own, but still managed some organized resistance. That is why it took the spanish longer in the yucutan. The incas fell after the spanish played kingmaking during their civil war, and got lucky to do so by capturing the current king.
The best case scenario would have either been the spanish meeting organized resistance in the andean. It would have eventually been deemed not worth it to try and take over the Incas if they simply didn't get lucky, and later on the Incas could have gone a diplomatic route to survive.
The Mayans might have pulled it off if they had stayed united in their resistance, but even so the growing power of spanish conquored mexico would have been a serious nearby threat. They would have had to go diplomatic as well as adopt more modern military means.
The Aztecs I want to say were fucked because of all the bad blood from the flower wars, but I suppose it isn't impossible for them to have done something similar to what I suggested for the mayans.
>>505023
>are not the full sum of European military might.
You have to remember this is PRE-COLONIAL Europe, saying they could wage a war in S. America with tens of thousands of men that needed to be supplied and housed on their dime is crazy. They NEEDED the native troops, they NEEDED the disunion in Inca ranks for a conquest to work, without that, they can't do squat regardless of their technological superiority.
>For all of Europe or just the big seafaring powers, no.
If they combined their forces, yeah, they wouldn't though. Inca had the advantage that they were politically technically one empire, they just needed their citizens and conquered people to all feel that way too. Europe had the problem that had the Spanish failed and got their ass handed to them the others would have just laughed or seen it as an opportunity to attack the Spanish.
Eventually however I do concede that the Inca would have fallen but as I stipulated, had they been more unified and had a few slight technological advancements like wider implementation of bronze and a proper writing system, the fall would have looked more like China or India and more likely the latter than the former with gradual decay and escalation culminating in a swift legal takeover.
>>505036
Europe would still be on the fringe of trade routes and getting super marked up prices on popular Asian goods. Regional powers or large coastal cities would still have impetus to search for a circumvention of those routes.
>>505057
>without that, they can't do squat regardless of their technological superiority.
How much did this play a role there? afaik, the spanish were armed with swords and shields then
>>505048
/thread
>>505094
and crossbows and guns and most importantly whose swords and that armor were made of steel. It wasn't that big of a deal though when the Spanish were in small numbers. I'm more discussing a theoretical second large scale invasion had the Spanish been beaten back by the Inca.
I'm saying even if the Spanish were technologically inferior they're not manning and supplying a ten thousand man army to invade and operate on hostile soil across the god damn Atlantic. It's just not happening. They need those native troops.
>>505118
>I'm saying even if the Spanish were technologically Superior
My bad.
>>505057
>If they combined their forces, yeah, they wouldn't though.
They don't have to combine their forces outright, they just have to make the case to each other that chopping up the new world is profitable for everyone and they won't attack each other until they finish -which they did in Africa. The Europeans would definitely work a deal out chopping up the new world. 1 - they did. 2 - they did it later with Africa 3 - the europeans are a culture used to chopping up land in diplomatic deals with no care for the one getting chopped up.
> they can't do squat regardless of their technological superiority
Also, you are overplaying the difficulty of supplying men over distance. England was extremely adapt at this considering that every war England had with mainland Europe was in a broad sense 'colonial'.
Also Portugal and Spain had been setting up colonies and ports in Africa - they knew how to ship goods and men abroad and they knew how to make forts. Europeans have been setting up colonies on islands for centuries. Again, it would have taken longer, but no way could the natives have won. Set up a few forts with cannons and men on the coast and you are set for a beachhead that allows shipping in mass goods. Once your colonies are up and running in a few years or a decade at most now they are self sufficient and give you money - now you don't even have to spend money to kill the natives, you earn money doing it in the form of raw goods. It's like you don't understand colonization.
You are forgetting that the Europeans DID THIS in a small scale in Africa already - a country WITH contact with the old world and did it to each other.
>>505118
>they're not manning and supplying a ten thousand man army to invade and operate on hostile soil across the god damn Atlantic. It's just not happening.
I see you post this, but you don't explain in any way why they couldn't. They had the tools. They had the will. They could definitely have done it.
>>505139
>Also, you are overplaying the difficulty of supplying men over distance
No I'm not you're downplaying it by comparing Englands wars on mainland Europe to waging a war across the Atlantic against a unified and organized force operating on their home turf and highly varried climate conditions all without a colonial empire to support that endeavour. It would have forcibly needed to be a long term approach not outright conquest JUST like Africa, India and China.
>Again, it would have taken longer, but no way could the natives have won.
You need to learn how to read and stop posting here that's what you gotta do. Biggest pet peeve I have is assholes that post without reading what they're responding to.
>1 - they did.
The POPE did
>2 - they did it later with Africa
irrelevant.
>>505145
>but you don't explain in any way why they couldn't.
Because that takes money and without a colonial empire and the infrastructure set up they don't have the money?
>>505168
B-but muh narrative of rich inherently oppressive Europeans!
Seriously, I never understand why people are so convinced that Western Europe was always the filthy rich forefront of technological and social development even before the Renaissance. They were developmentally on par with most of the Old World in the 15th century and were not nearly as wealthy as China and India.
Had a new plague or disease outbreak heavily impacted the colonies and Europe after they brought over their goods and livestock but before their hold on the land could be cemented it would have meant the North Americans would have recovered. Groups like the Cherokee would have simply kept their written language and would have adopted most of the "civilized" traits. With the addition of livestock from Europe they could perform European style farming and probably could have figured out most of the technological advantages the Europeans had with time. The Cherokees made some impressive advances in a very short period of time. Had they not been squashed early they would have become a major power.
So basically one good but delayed new plague they were immune to but Europeans weren't would have saved them.
>>505264
What about Malaria in the equatorial areas?
>>505271
Malaria was hardly unknown to Europeans, it also existed in Africa. It was a major impediment, however, and might have been part of why native populations recovered so well.
The truth about the natives however is that they did survive. Rather than disappearing many just married white people, whose children looked more white than native and also married white people. My grandmother was a fullblooded blackfoot Indian and other than some slightly "nonwhite" eyes you can hardly tell I'm not fully white.
It's fair to say they didn't suffer genocide but just getting bred out. While reservations still exist look at the members and you'll see how white many of them look. Very few pureblood natives exist in North America.
>>505232
>muh sense of superiority was challenged
>ooooooh noooooooooo
Anyone would have the same problem, what you're suggesting they do is crazy hard and is precisely why they didn't do it anywhere else.
There seems to be a lack of Arauco war in this thread.
Seems like you all think the resistance to the conquerors was somewhere else when it's there that the real warriors showed their worth.
>>505162
>No I'm not you're downplaying it by comparing Englands wars on mainland Europe to waging a war across the Atlantic against a unified and organized force operating on their home turf and highly varried climate conditions all without a colonial empire to support that endeavour. It would have forcibly needed to be a long term approach not outright conquest JUST like Africa, India and China.
Firstly, you act like the Spanish, English and Portuguese were unfamiliar with sailing the Atlantic. This is false, they were familiar. You act like Europeans had never fielded a fighting force on foreign shores - even across the Atlantic. This is also false. They had done it with Africa, specifically the Portuguese and the Spanish with islands. Secondly, if you would kindly re-read my first post, my point this whole time is that indeed it would have been cut up like Africa in a best case scenario for the natives. The Europeans would have chopped the continent up between themselves instead of just Portugal and Spain.
>The POPE did
The pope was European m90
>irrelevant.
No its not - we are talking about a pretend universe. The relevance is that Europeans are used to cutting up land among themselves, that fact is highly relevant tot he conversation.
>>505168
>Because that takes money and without a colonial empire and the infrastructure set up they don't have the money?
>>505168
it's almost like the European colonial powers had to set up their colonial empires by themselves, how novel an idea. By your reasoning colonization could never have happened because to have the wealth to colonize Europeans would have had to have colonies to begin with. It's a silly, silly logical fallacy.
>>505348
>precisely why they didn't do it anywhere else.
if by 'do it' you mean colonize land and fight large scale wars with the natives you are wrong. The Europeans did it all over Africa, Asia and North America.
>>505371
He didn't say they lacked the wealth to colonize. He said they lacked the wealth to field a large invasion force so far away to fight a long war against a competent enemy.
>>505364
>Firstly, you act like the Spanish, English and Portuguese were unfamiliar with sailing the Atlantic.
Not the point.
>You act like Europeans had never fielded a fighting force on foreign shores - even across the Atlantic. This is also false. They had done it with Africa,
>across the Atlantic
>Africa
Neat
Again you're underestimating the endeavour and you're underestimating the impact to the endeavour that a unified and organised opposing force would have. It would have been suicide for any force they landed, it would have been bankruptcy for any crown that fielded that force. It's idiotic, slow gradual takeover is the only way that makes sense.
>No its not -
Yeah it is because it hadn't happened yet. Saying "well this would have happened here because later under entirely different circumstances and in a completely different political climate this other thing happened", doesn't make sense, the partitioning of African colonies doesn't matter here it's an entirely separate issue
>>505364
>. This is also false. They had done it with Africa, specifically the Portuguese and the Spanish with islands.
There's a distinct difference between sailing around the African coast, potentially stopping by muh trading posts and crossing the thousands of kilometres with (what you're suggesting) a huge fleet with enough supplies to maintain thousands and thousands of soldiers during this months-long journey.
The only chance the natives had was at the very beginning of European exploration. The natives needed to raid hard and fast the early settlements and butcher the populations and then display the bodies. Keep repeating this to terrify the White man and make The Americas not worth it. This should have bought the natives a couple of decades to do something.
>>504989
>because pikes are impossible to them I guess. Were you born a racist or did you have to work at it?
Ameriboos please stop...if you can't persuade us without resorting to the racist cracker boogeyman just don't even bother trying. Fielding effective pike formations is a bit more complex than handing long sticks to the next best men. Especially if you have to develop the concept from scratch in a short time since there is no experience with that kind of stuff on your entire continent.
There is no way for your little fantasy to exist. Disease would have gotten them and if not that European nations would have sent a bit more than a small expedition to conquer.
>>505379
>if by 'do it' you mean colonize land and fight large scale wars with the natives you are wrong.
No I don't, I suggest next time you ask for clarification before you put words in someone elses mouth in an effort to feel superior. You're also extrapolating on different eras and different situations. The scramble for Africa had distinct differences, Namely, it wasn't attempted outright until the resources from preexisting colonies could be brought to bear, before that as previously stated by the other anon, trading towns and forts were all that were maintained with large colonial holding occurring later.
It's the same with India and SE Asia. Because sending a fleet and thousands of men across an ocean is really really crazy expensive so it's something you only do if the previous is for some insane reason just not possible and you happen to have a bunch of money lying round, which without colonies is unlikely.
>>505412
oh yessa massa sah, should I do a jiiiig while I do's wahts ya sez?
>>505400
>Not the point.
its exactly the point
>Neat
Again you're underestimating the endeavour and you're underestimating the impact to the endeavour that a unified and organised opposing force would have. It would have been suicide for any force they landed, it would have been bankruptcy for any crown that fielded that force. It's idiotic, slow gradual takeover is the only way that makes sense.
You are again overestimating the strength of the natives. The Europeans could field a large enough army to set up a beachhead, with forts. Then they have an open doorway to sail in soldiers, and they don't need to have an army the size of the native population - many natives won't be able to fight. Women, children and the elderly. They don't even need to field an army the size of the native army. The natives were terrified of the noise and size of horses and the noise of guns.
Of course a European couldn't field an army capable of fighting another European style army across the Atlantic, we can see that with the American Revolution, but they could most definitely field an armies large enough to scare and kill the natives and take over their land. You seem to think that Spain barely defeated the natives when they steamrolled over them - much to the surprise of the crown. The best case scenario is that the bloodbath lasts longer and more natives must be killed to secure the new continent for European interests - there is really no other way around it unless the natives were at or near the Europeans in warfare, and they weren't.
You act like fielding men thousands of miles away from home in Africa was so different than in the new world - it wasn't. It was a proof of concept, it could be done because it was done.
>>502793
I bet you would've cried
>>505421
That's why I prefaced my remark by 'if by X you mean', next time don't jump to anger so quickly when your point is attacked.
None of what you write did I disagree with or argue on. Yes Africa and South America are different. Yes Europe colonized both. That's the point. Of course they are different.
>Because sending a fleet and thousands of men across an ocean is really really crazy expensive
and yet they did it and it worked, on multiple occasions. Of course its expensive. Of course its difficult. That doesn't preclude it from being effective.
>>504969
>Would an "Alaska Shogunate" have started up or a "Californian Dynasty"?
Both sound boring compared to the syncretism of Asians and Indians in SE Asia.
Shouldn't the colonization of America have been like the Vietnam war?
The natives are the Viet commies.
The Euros are the Americans.
Natives are out gunned but they out number the Euros. They a natives even fought gueirilla. Yet they still lost? Are natives just genetically incompetent at war?
>>505400
>Yeah it is because it hadn't happened yet. Saying "well this would have happened here because later under entirely different circumstances and in a completely different political climate this other thing happened", doesn't make sense, the partitioning of African colonies doesn't matter here it's an entirely separate issue
you are grasping at straws to say my argument about European land delineation in Africa is irrelevant because it happened under entirely different circumstances when we are talking about a made up world in which the south americans unified.
>>505447
>its exactly the point
No it isn't, being familiar with the route to take doesn't change the fact that that what you're asking them to do is stupid.
>You are again overestimating the strength of the natives.
This is a theoretical exercise in which I'm stipulating certain things for the natives. This is my scenario, I made it, I cannot possibly be overestimating it.
>The Europeans could field a large enough army to set up a beachhead, with forts. Then they have an open doorway to sail in soldiers, and they don't need to have an army the size of the native population - many natives won't be able to fight. Women, children and the elderly. They don't even need to field an army the size of the native army. The natives were terrified of the noise and size of horses and the noise of guns.
We're talking about a theoretically united Incan empire in which the population knows what an Incan is, knows it is Incan and knows the Spanish most definitely are not, have a large organised army numbering in the tens of thousands, armed and equipped for fighting in specific and different climates and under competent unified leadership with an enormous pool of manpower even after smallpox.
You are not pulling this off with that plan.
>but they could most definitely field an armies large enough to scare and kill the natives and take over their land.
Not if they're united under one homogeneous and very large empire which is my entire point.
>- there is really no other way around it
Of course not when you're dead set on nothing obstructing your ridiculous eurocentrist pov. It's an enormous empire with more resources in every department than Spain, more men, more gold, more food, unified under one ruler with one overarching culture and without petty political rivalries and to top it all off they're fighting on their home turf and you still think Spain would win because reasons.
That's stupid sir.
>but muh africa
Comment is too long now so I just say I don't care
>>505447
>You act like fielding men thousands of miles away from home in Africa was so different than in the new world - it wasn't.
Where in Africa? Do you think the same kind of ship that was used in the Mediterranean could sustain months in the open ocean?
>>505461
>That's why I prefaced my remark by 'if by X you mean',
Don't?
You sound like a fucking presumptive and annoying jackass when you do so stop it and don't act like it's fine? Just ask next time rather than ask, assume I do and respond to your own assumption? Could you do that?
>and yet they did it and it worked
Under entirely different circumstances, when they did they already had large economies supplied by raw materials from their colonies or the impact to economies other colonies had to do it with. This is taking place around the time of pizarro, maybe a little lateer, and is completely different because now there's a large, organized, competent force waiting for you on the other side and you don't even have all those other colonies yet.
Why did I even came here?
Being this all hypothetical I see no point in arguing.
>>505518
is there ever really a "point" to arguing?
>>505523
Not here at least.
>>505490
>what you're asking them to do is stupid.
it is stupid to invade and conquer a land full of natural resources
>We're talking about a theoretically united Incan empire in which the population knows what an Incan is, knows it is Incan and knows the Spanish most definitely are not, have a large organised army numbering in the tens of thousands, armed and equipped for fighting in specific and different climates and under competent unified leadership with an enormous pool of manpower even after smallpox.
"At the signal to attack, the Spaniards unleashed gunfire at the vulnerable mass of Incans and surged forward in a concerted action. The effect was devastating and the shocked and unarmed Incans offered little resistance. The Spanish forces used a cavalry charge against the Incan forces, in combination with gunfire from cover (the Incan forces also had never encountered firearms before) combined with the ringing bells on the horses to frighten the Inca"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca
This is exactly what I am talking about - you are vastly overestimating the native force. The Europeans would have defeated them. The Incan army has no way to breach a European style fort except massive rush of men - men who would be terrified and destroyed by cannon fire. The natives are outmatched, out gunned and unable to win.
>Of course not when you're dead set on nothing obstructing your ridiculous eurocentrist pov. It's an enormous empire with more resources in every department than Spain, more men, more gold, more food, unified under one ruler with one overarching culture and without petty political rivalries and to top it all off they're fighting on their home turf and you still think Spain would win because reasons.
Ahh, 'euro-centrist', it comes out. If the empire was so much better than the Spanish empire, why did the Spanish defeat them so easily?
>>505490
2/2
Now let me tell you what the Europeans could do to attack the natives, if it even got that far:
Blockade and destroy all fishing. You wouldn't need a huge army to do this. Destroy their ability to get food from the sea. The Europeans could do this with virtually no fear - the natives were entirely outmatched as far as navies go. The natives didn't have one.
After starving the natives for a few weeks or months or even years - a very short time as far as wars go - the Europeans / Spaniards / whomever could march against severely weakened troops.
Now of course not all agricultural output would not be effected - but all you would need is a 10%-20% food drop to create rioting, rationing and general discontent among the native populace. The Europeans could foul the waterways of the natives easily as well leading to more sickness and disease. The Europeans would have stomped the floor with a united Incan empire because the Incans were so far behind technologically.
>>505514
>You sound like a fucking presumptive and annoying jackass when you do so stop it and don't act like it's fine? Just ask next time rather than ask, assume I do and respond to your own assumption? Could you do that?
epic burn
>Under entirely different circumstances, when they did they already had large economies supplied by raw materials from their colonies or the impact to economies other colonies had to do it with. This is taking place around the time of pizarro, maybe a little lateer, and is completely different because now there's a large, organized, competent force waiting for you on the other side and you don't even have all those other colonies yet.
Yes, but the point is not 'Africa is different from South America'. I know that. I never said they were the same. The point is that Europeans have a history and pattern of colonization and conquering of native peoples - it is a pattern that they would have continued to do even if it was more difficult because new fertile lands are extremely important to the European mindset.
>>505610
>it is stupid to invade and conquer a land full of natural resources
Like that? Yes.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca
Neat, now have something similar happen a decade later after the Inca have already driven the first Spanish expedition out and it's a new story, they're not surprised by cavalry, they're not scared by gunfire, they form ranks and march forward.
>The Incan army has no way to breach a European style fort
Most sieges are boring affairs that last a really long time with men sitting in holes and are usually ended with either capitulation of the defenders or one final confident and successful push by the besiegers who were sure of victory, the Carthages, Sarmizegetusa's and Alamo's are special and interesting because they're not the norm, Total War games lied to you.
>Ahh, 'euro-centrist', it comes out.
Well it's pretty obvious at this point.
>If the empire was so much better than the Spanish empire, why did the Spanish defeat them so easily?
Because the one I'm talking about didn't actually exist, that's the whole point of this thread.
>>505620
>herpaderpadurr
>>505647
>Not scared by gunfire
Gunfire was demoralizing against natives and less advanced people even after decades of use against them. Why is your hypothetical Incan Empire able to get over it totally so quickly?
>>504572
Isn't there a tribe in Brazil that was descendant from a bunch of Japs that got there pre-columbus?
>>505631
>The point is that Europeans have a history and pattern of colonization and conquering of native peoples
Do you understand that the pattern isn't actually "sending a fuckhuge army to conquer this one empire" and is in reality "build a few trading posts and build up our influence in the region gradually, using local soldiers to augment our own forces, undermining local politics for years ,culminating in the eventual subjugation of X area and only sending a large force if absolutely necessary and only after we've made millions trading with the locals already".
What this guy is advocating is asinine and very much not what European colonization tended to look like at all, he's completely skipping a bunch of steps.
>>505657
>Why is your hypothetical Incan Empire able to get over it totally so quickly?
Because they're organized, discipled trained professional infantry not a bunch of peasant militia's assembled by some sub-saharan despot.
>>505666
>What this guy is advocating is asinine and very much not what European colonization tended to look like at all, he's completely skipping a bunch of steps.
This, S. America was a fluke that wasn't repeated anywhere else. The British model of colonization is supreme.
>>505679
Was there any precedent for that level of discipline and tactics on par with contemporary Europe in the New World at the time? Or does simple unification advance them decades/centuries in the realm of military theory, tactics and training?
>>505692
>Was there any precedent for that level of discipline and tactics on par with contemporary Europe in the New World at the time?
Was there any precedent for this hypothetical scenario I'm making up in which a homogeneous fully realized bronze-age Incan Empire with written language exists? No I don't think there is otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
>does simple unification advance them decades/centuries in the realm of military theory, tactics and training?
Considering even without all these advantages I mentioned they still held out and established an independent state complete with cavalry corps, I think they weren't too far off the mark.
>>505666
>"sending a fuckhuge army to conquer this one empire"
I never argued for that though. You are making a strawman.
>>505647
>Neat, now have something similar happen a decade later after the Inca have already driven the first Spanish expedition out and it's a new story, they're not surprised by cavalry, they're not scared by gunfire, they form ranks and march forward.
neat, now let me explain the gunfire was demoralizing to other Europeans which is why they liked to use it against each other even though it wasn't very accurate. It was more demoralizing to the natives and would continue to be.
>Well it's pretty obvious at this point.
What is, exactly?
>Because the one I'm talking about didn't actually exist, that's the whole point of this thread.
Even if they had, the Spanish would have defeated them - if not alone, with other European powers.
>herpaderpadurr
>let me post on and on about how great my pretend Incan empire is
>someone posts how Europeans would still own them
>I am now mad
Yes, I can see that.
>>505712
>I never argued for that though.
You're arguing that just because it was really expensive and hard it didn't mean they wouldn't do it because Europeans went out and conquered and one more hurdle wouldn't stop them. I'm arguing that's exactly what it means because at the present junction we're discussing all the previous steps hadn't happened.
>>505707
Don't get cunty, I was asking a question because I'm no authority on pre-Columbian American warfare.
>>505730
>demoralizing
There's a difference between demoralizing and having them all flee in panic because htey have no clue what's going on and it's their first exposure to it.
You LITERALLY took their very first encounter with the weapon and then said "that's how they'll always be".
>What is, exactly?
That you're a euro centrist and will always say Spain or england or France or [insert colonial power here] will win against natives easily.
>Even if they had, the Spanish would have defeated them - if not alone, with other European powers.
Nah.
>I am now mad
I ain't even mad.
>>505661
Sounds like some folklore. There was recent genetic tests that proved ancient Australian/Papuan peoples were part of the original waves of migration that populated the Americas along with the Siberians.
>>505744
I'm arguing against like 3 people here that all think the Spanish went around crushing natives with their giant Spanish cocks, I assume everyone is hostile, sorry.
>>505764
>Implying they didn't do that
Oh im sorry Marty McFly I didn't realize you lived in an alternate meme history.
>>505814
>Implying they didn't do that
yes, that's right, you got it.
>>505736
I'm agreeing that the Europeans wouldn't need to field a large army to conquer the natives in the Americas - even if they were unified.
With a successfull and lasting contact with the Norse, could that change anything? It could eventually lead to spread of horses, right? And possibly there would have formed a North American nation that was both big and powerful? How far south would innovations brought by Norse have spread before the rest of Europe followed? Would a popular, long lasting trade route to America just have brought the invaders earlier?
Could a Norse settlement have changed anything at all, to the point where at least one Native American culture could be alive today?
>>505824
I'm saying they would have had they done it any other way other than the one outlined.
>>501739
the totonac uprising was imminent anyway, it would have happened even without Cortes fanning the flames
>>505755
>There's a difference between demoralizing and having them all flee in panic because htey have no clue what's going on and it's their first exposure to it.
You LITERALLY took their very first encounter with the weapon and then said "that's how they'll always be".
I took a historical account. Yes that was their first exposure. Do you think their second or third will be much better? How many hundreds of times do they have to flee from firearms before they think 'geeze, no big deal'?
>Nah.
Well you surely proved your point and changed my mind.
>I ain't even mad.
Then you are simply juvenile to use personal insult to try and help bolster the merits of your arguments.
>That you're a euro centrist and will always say Spain or england or France or [insert colonial power here] will win against natives easily.
That is not the case, you say that because you seek to discredit me. It is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. Viewing life through a narrative of 'he is an x-centrist' is limiting. It is silly to say I am being euro-centrist when we are talking about European matters. Are you then a native-centrist because you take the opposing side?
>>497747
>Viking colony in Vinland succeeds or at least lasts a little longer
>Iron tools, horses and smallpox slowly make their way south through trade routes
>Aztecs start developing immunity to European diseases and adopt horse riding and iron tools
>Eventually Incas do the same
>Cortez and his ilk are mercilessly slaughtered at a Yucatan beach
>>505836
>totonac uprising
Wrong
The Totoni were ready to associate themselves with the governments south of the Tehicaulic valley about a dozen years before the onset of any hostilities between the spanish. There would have been most likely land grants and appeasements made beforehand.
>>505867
You forgot the part where they capture the ships and cross bows, and manage to reverse engineer them and sail across the ocean and conquer northern Africa.
>>505730
>Even if they had, the Spanish would have defeated them - if not alone, with other European powers.
What would they gain off it? Who even had a decent navy back then that could travel the Atlantic like that, besides those two Iberian nations?
>>505852
>Do you think their second or third will be much better?
.....Yeah, probably.
>Well you surely proved your point and changed my mind.
>you're a euro centrist and will always say Spain or england or France or [insert colonial power here] will win against natives easily.
Your mind isn't changing regardless. You already outlined your own stupidity when you suggested a European power would actuall send a fleet around the Cape of Good Hope to blockade a bunch of reed fishing boats on a coast that stretched from Ecuador to Chile.
>Then you are simply juvenile
>I'm going around making make believe invasion plans that fly in the face of every succesful strategum and get angry when I don't get taken seriously
>but you're the juvernile one
Pfft, ok
>That is not the case, you say that because you seek to discredit me.
I say that because you clearly are too dogmatic to consider any scenario in which you idiotic ideas wouldn't work and you do it simply because:
>Muh Europe
Did it ever occur to you that the colonial powers got to where they were by a way other than thinking with their dicks?
>>505887
>Limiting all of the conquest of the Americas to a single point in history
Sure, there werent too many naval powers back then. All that means is that it wouldve taken a couple more years for more European nations to jump on the bandwagon and head over.
>>505867
>Eventually Incas do the same
Inca actually did irl though
>>505882
I always played this scenario in AOE2
>map: North America
>Team 1:
>Vikings (me)
>Aztecs (friend)
>Team 2:
>Spanish (friend)
>French (friend)
>Team 3:
>British (AI hard)
>Team 4:
>Mayans (AI hard)
Shit was awesome
>>505897
>is that it wouldve taken a couple more years
Yeah, because that's how long it takes to build a war fleet.
A couple of years.
>>505893
>You already outlined your own stupidity when you suggested a European power would actuall send a fleet around the Cape of Good Hope to blockade a bunch of reed fishing boats on a coast that stretched from Ecuador to Chile.
NEVERMIND THAT THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHERE THE FUCK ANY OF THAT SHIT WAS YET.
>>505902
>AOE2
nigga do that shit on American Conquest
shit gets cray cray
>>505904
Oh, quiet you.
>>505915
Spanish Armada was built in a couple of years and it only took a couple of tons of new world silver and gold to fund it....Oh wait.
>>505923
audibly laughed at this
>>505893
>You already outlined your own stupidity when you suggested a European power would actuall send a fleet around the Cape of Good Hope to blockade a bunch of reed fishing boats on a coast that stretched from Ecuador to Chile.
Your narrative of Europe clearly does not fit the historical one. Spain won far more easily than they expected to be sure - but the Inca - even if their whole empire was consolidated - would have fallen. They were not as advanced. That, and that above all else is why they fell. That was their doom. I do not believe Europe to be, necessarily, the height of human civilization - but the natives in the new world were clearly far behind the people of the old world. You are a fool if you don't think that Spain would do whatever it had to to defeat and conquer the Inca - especially considering they thought the land was far more valuable than it was, and the Inca had nothing but bodies to throw at the Spanish. How do the Inca take a Spanish fort? How do they do it? Even with the vast land, population and wealth of the Inca they crumbled.
>>505897
It seemed that you suggested that (western) Europe would, somehow, unite under Spanish command and take dow the Incan man, splitting the already known gold/iron mines. I do have to remember (yet again) that the ships that crossed the Atlantic were not the same kind that you'd see the ottomemes using, for example. The entire logistics seem to be a fucking nightmare unless we're talking about steamboats here, fucking incas are on the other side of the coninet and one would have to cross the strait of magellan and then follow thousands of kilometres north. You're also suggesting that entire countries would be willing to destinate a considerable lower amount of money to defend their borders and instead waste most of it on their navy
>>505923
To be fair, at the time the Spanish expenses were insanely huge and therefore the new world $$ really ended up being spread out among everything else as well. It didnt directly/ only go towards the building of ships in the Spanish Armada.
Regardless, by I couple years I meant more than a couple. Just a colloquialism, no need for semantics here. Navies capable of crossing the Atlantic would have been developed by other nations over time regardless of the Americas.
>>505906
>NEVERMIND THAT THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHERE THE FUCK ANY OF THAT SHIT WAS YET.
literally because the Inca fell so fast the Spanish didn't have time to figure out how much they had conquered. That isn't something to be proud of. To pretend that in an actual war Spain wouldn't explore and map out the territory of the Inca - when Spain was an empire built on exploration - is asinine.
>>505941
>That, and that above all else is why they fell.
No it isn't.
They fell, and this is unchallenged in every single historical text, to native troops lead by Spanish soldiers.
This is a fact.
I'm taking those soldiers away and giving them two options, the long drawn out colonization put in effect in Africa, India and SE asia or an outright full scale invasion.
The second one is retarded and won't work, the first one probably will.
>You are a fool if you don't think that Spain would do whatever it had to to defeat and conquer the Inca
You are just a fool.
>How do the Inca take a Spanish fort?
What you do to 99% of the other forts that were taken in history, surround it and wait until they don't have anything to eat.
>>505947
>literally because the Inca fell so fast the Spanish didn't have time to figure out how much they had conquered
If by "so fast" you mean they weren't taken out until the 1570's, sure.
This thread is so filled with logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies and nonfactual evidence that it should be cleansed with fire. Im going to bed.
>>505988
I'm just going to bed.
>>505959
>They fell, and this is unchallenged in every single historical text, to native troops lead by Spanish soldiers.
>This is a fact.
I am not disputing that. The Spanish were able to use native allies - and of course this is the case, nobody believes that 100 Spaniards killed 100,000,000,000,000 Inca with their bare hands and the might of Europe. What you can't seem to understand though is that the reason the Inca were disliked and the reason it was so easy for the Spanish to find these allies and the reason they didn't have to actually have a proper war with the Inca was because the Inca were having a civil war. Why were the Inca having a civil war? Massive unrest. Why massive unrest? Smallpox and the Inca having terrible sanitation, IE. poor technology. Understand this.
>>505959
>What you do to 99% of the other forts that were taken in history, surround it and wait until they don't have anything to eat.
How do the Inca surround a fort if they get killed by cannon fire and gun fire when they try? The Inca can not siege effectively - which is critical.
>>505975
Pretty impressive time frame to conquer approx. 700,000 square miles don't you think?
>>505988
I agree - someone in this thread believes that the Inca could someone repulse the Spanish, despite all the historical evidence otherwise.
Cortes and Pizzaro got very lucky. If the Aztecs/Inca leadership had only made different decisions, the Spanish expeditions would have ended in disaster. If that had happened, Spain would have been limited to a few coastal colonies for decades, maybe a century.
Even with only a few hundred men Cortes's expedition was enormously expensive. All of the gold looted from Mexico barely covered the cost of the ships and horses lost. If all of Cortes's men were killed and sacrificed, few would feel like giving it a second try.
>>505412
The aztecs actually did use pikes to defend themselves against Spanish horse.
To this day it amaze me how lucky Cortes was, I mean, I get the whole meso american world being pissed at the aztecs, but a no name explorer finding not only de Aguilar but also Malintzin, no shit he believed god himself was behind the aztec conquest.
>>506315
He used any oportunity than presented to him to get advantage, I think people is downplaying how smart Cortez was, he played Spaniards and Natives to his benefit with lots of ploys, knew how to use his men and motivate them, heck he stole for himself the army than should have detained him and used them, even when they were a liability later one thinking only in loot. Plus the way than used the natives was very intelligent, he transformed enemies at first like the Tlaxcalans or Otomi in allies (after defeating them in a four days battle were the natives were heavily defeated ,the Spaniards didn't have native warrior allies only porter and women, and the Tlaxcalans had time to raise they armie and tought the Spaniards were allies of the Aztecs) and ended lots of petty tribal wars. Is pretty impressive all the shit he did starting with so little.
>>501739
>Say Spain never finances the Colombus expedition and the discovery of the Americas is put off for another 100-200 years.
After the effects of Prince Henry the Navigator and the wealth he unearthed it would be unlikely for it to take that long if Spain did not pay for the Columbus expeditions. The just a little bit later Vasco da Gama's finding are now overshadowed by Colombus, but at the time they yielded far more profit. By the 1520's Europeans were sailing in and around Japanese waters.
The discovery of the Americas could of happened later then 1492, but in all honesty I can not see it being more then 40 or 50 years later at maximum. A lot of Europeans other then the ones who wet to the new world made fortune and fame exploring.
>>501739
>>507036
>A lot of people don't realize this, but the Inca and Aztec were relatively new empires by the time the Europeans showed up.
As a follow up near of those empire were the first one to happen in those areas. What would 50, 100, or even 200 more years of empire in those places do really? There is a great many cases of subject people being hostile to their overlords longer then that.
>>504886
>or you know, actually implemented large scale use of bronze
The issue is that they did not know much about how to find tin deposits. Not that there not any in easily mine-able places because the Spanish found those rather quickly in those area. The natives just did not know of the forums that tin ore could take.
Do you think that bronze weapons and armor would help very much against blast furnace steel and gunpowder?
> were culturally unified.
That would help only if in the first few battles they do not get their ass handed to them.
>>497747
The chances of success are minute but there were several things they could have done, in order of importance.
1: Adopt guns and steel. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. You are making yourself a threat, but the conquistadores are calculators, they attack the areas with least resistance and the most material gain first, so by trying to adopt their military technology ASAP you give yourself an advantage regardless.
2: Ally with the conquerors during the initial invasion like the Tlaxcalans and make the appearance of assimilating. This might seem counter-intuitive but with the subjugation of your core territories being inevitable it is the best way to prepare for later phases and help speed up and buy time for the process of adopting guns and steel.
3: "muh germs", I don't agree with everything in "guns, germs and steel" but it generally describes the 3 main advantages the conquistadores had. You need to gather up all the people who managed to survive the various waves of disease
4: Now it is the period after the conquest, the conquistadores have attacked the areas of least resistance and now will move on to areas with greater resistance, us. We will find the most intelligent of our people and get them to study the europeans, send them to europe to the pope and to impress aristocrats, go over their heads and make as many political and religious overtures as possible to gain support against the colonial overlords. We will go to the governor of Cuba and say "if you want credit for the conquests you should give us political protection from the conquistadores on the mainland".
>>497747
5: They want gold, silver and various cash crops so we will mine and grow as much as possible and use it to bribe key political figures, people mentioned in 4. We can also use this to hire mercenaries, buy steel and possibly find other allies in europe, play portugal and spain against each other, use the threat of English pirates and our much needed assistance as a negotiating chip.
All this to buy time so we can adapt and gain guns and steel and hold onto as much land as possible. We might also need to hypocritically use the new weapons to claim territory deeper inland that is more difficult for the conquistadores to take, so we can survive, wage a guerrilla war with our new weapons so they can't give us as much of a pasting as they did in the past and maybe negotiate with our connections in Europe. Basically sending a letter to the king saying "the conquistadors broke your laws that is why we are fighting them and the only way to end this expensive war and have us pay taxes again is to order the conquistadors to withdraw and return our rightful territories to us".
Our power in the long term depends on our ability to survive in the jungles and be a nuisance and everything I mentioned was in preparation for this. We can gain as much independence as possible, all things considered.
Maybe I am stretching the definition, but if someone is at war with you, you must pay a tax, a tax to the god of war to raise troops and defend yourself and preserve what independence you have. You are never 100% independent, you always owe something to Epunamun. Death and taxes are inevitable.
>>497747
A lots of American tribes and the such resisted the Europeans and their invasions. Many Latin American countries had to continue the "conquest" even until recent times, and there are many "non conquered" tribes remaining to this day.
In the case of >muh country like 70% of the territory was never conquered by the Spaniards and there are two very well known strongholds they used to defeat them over and over again. Then again, there is the case of the so called peaceful tribes on the South who the Spaniards never tried to conquer and they traded with them. There is also a third stronghold that many used to defeat the Spaniards, but they got so BTFO when they tried that only tried once.
In the case of the tribe of the North, not only they saw what the Spaniards did on other territories and when the Spaniards tried to subdue them they already knew they tactics and even Spanish. Their method to avoid being conquered also included killing everything that wasnt part of their tribe, be it kids, woman, slaves and anything; they never felled for the "we come in peace to teach you about Jesus" bullshit.
The only Amerindians who got conquered by the Europeans were the once who initially allied themselves with them and the tribes subdued by them before the Europeans arrived.
>>505867
IRL the leaders of the Vikings who got to Vinland forbid their people to even show the iron weapons or tools to the Natives, even trade them. On the Vinland saga there is this passage that tells of a small fight between the Vikings and the Natives, the Natives defeated the Vikings and took and iron axe they left behing, the guy who took it hit a rock with it and it broke, he laughed and threw it in to the water. The Viking who saw it then said that he did it because anything that couldnt resist the strength of a rock wasn't a good weapon; I dont know how he reached that conclusion or if it is true that the Natives of the place believed but thats what apparently happened.
Who knows if the Vikings would have traded iron stuff with them in your scenario.
>>507136
>Adopt guns and steel.
That is harder then it sounds. They would need to learn about the various forums iron ore take. Then start gathering said ore and start producing charcoal on a what is for them a new scale. Then they will need to build and operate a large number of blast furnaces. Even with help building the first one the early copies will likely have major flaws. Also likely more then a few forge fires. At this point you can start trying to make Iron tools for metal working using stone tools. Even if the Spanish give them the tools , tell them how to use each one, and give a couple of their craftsmen a crash course of how to work hot iron it will take them time to get okay at it. In Europe it was common for a run of the mill village blacksmith to be apprenticed for 2 to 3 years learning the trade.
Anyways they could during that time start the process of making tools for the other forges and next on to trying to make steel. Baring the Spanish also teaching them how to correctly temper steel it will take years for them to figure how to get steel that is okay for weapons. In Europe arms & armor making guilds could and did block other smiths from entering the business simply by not telling them the finer points of working steel and making those types of items. Additionally veteran sword smiths, even with a working arquebus on hand, had a extremely hard time making another working arquebus of reasonable quality. Without a Spanish guns smith selling the natives trade secrets it would take a very long time to start producing guns even with a well trained core of black smiths. Going from no ironing working to making guns is going to take generations, even with a small amount of help at the start.
How would the
>>505023
>For one country, yes.
Incan Empire wouldn't be a problem for Spain alone.
There would be problems with it being conquered by 500 men but imagine Pizzaro failed to conquer, but got back to Spain, told about the riches etc.
What would happen? Instead of sending 500 men, Spanish Crown would send 10000, with more cavalry, actual artillery and more firearms. How long could Incas resist them?
This thread is an Americasboo wankfest and if you disagree with their fantasy of strong Inca empire of plenty you are a racist. Just leave them Mexicans and hipsters of their fantasies of grandeur.
Aztecs and stuff were pretty cool though.
>>507136
It could't work, first they didn't have the tech or knowlagde to smelt iron, much less steel, and even then making guns isn't that easy, the Japs learned from the Portuguese (in echange of women, the weak point of every sailor) but they had a source of quality steel and lots of pig iron like the tamaghane furnace, while the Aztecs and incans had very basic metalurgy and didn't have any form to make furnaces hot enough to make iron.
2. Also why rebel when the Conquistadores would be part of your family? They weren't like Anglo settlers, conquistadores married into the local noble families. Heck, the Aztec emperor family was nobility in Spain, the Counts of Miravelle-Moctezuma (the Spanish branch doesn't use the Moctezuma part), than were pestering the actual Mexican gov for pay pension than cortez and the kings of Spain promised to his descendents. Every year they were part of the Spanish empire more mixed babies would exist, and they wouldn't have any motive to rebel, also the Mestizos would be stronger to european disaes, so it ties with your 3 point.
4. Why do you say we? Also to get to Europea you need european sailing tech, why would they pay a costly voyage without gaining anything?
5. Why would the native people do it? Peace was more or less universal under the Spaniards, laboring like slaves for war doesn't sound like a very popular endeavor.
>>497747
>Is there a scenario in which nativeamericans(incas/mayas/etc)
>Could have won against european people?
Not against a concerted European effort but they could have feasibly remained intact against little groups of conquistadors.
>Or even in the best of circumstances(maybe if they were more developed, etc), viruses and illness would have always played a determining factor in conquest?
If they were in some way immune to smallpox or something then yeah. They could have survived until the 19th century like African kingdoms or even modernised like the japs if they were extremely lucky and knew how to be perfidious. All pure conjecture though, disease fucked them up
>>505349
Indeed.
All the "historians" in this site seem to believe Aztecs, Mayans and Incas were the only tribe of the Americas.
Op ask if a native people could in a hypothetical scenario resist or defeat the Europeans.
No need of hypothetical scenarios. That actually happened. Mapuches did it.
>>507417
>or even modernised like the japs
Nah, not likely since they weren't in literally the furthest place for European control.
>All pure conjecture though, disease fucked them up
/thread
>>507477
Nomads managed to hold on in Patagonia, North Mexico and the Southwest of the United States only until after the independence wars, when they were promptly hunted down into full submission. And one could argue that it only took that long because chasing them around worthless desert was too expensive for colonial powers. The newly formed nations who wanted to settle borders firmly and needed these people subdued didn't have much trouble doing so.
Presumably the OP means a lasting victory.
In Québec, when the French had the power they were allies with the natives. The authorities treated them with more respect than the actual colons. When the British invaded they fought alongside the French and even if they lost (because France did not send troops, wishing to protect its country over its colony) they still fought. Pontiac was a native leader so respected that he united all the natives from Nouvelle-France in a huge army of 56 000 soldiers. With bows and arrows they overtook 8 out of the twelve English forts on the territory. They fought for France to regain power since they knew British did not respect their rights on their land. The sad thing is that the French did not want to fight anymore. France abandoned its colony and all that was left was a bunch of hungry French farmers led by their catholic church which took alliance with the British in exchange for the right to maintain Catholicism in the colony. To please the English leaders the church forbid the rebels to continue the war.
With the help of the French (if the church would have been loyal to its nation) OR some good weapons send by France (the colons had nothing to give, but the king could have sent some stuff if he did not abandon the colony instead) or the Americans (after all it was just before the independence war and they hated the British just as much as the French did XD).
Years later the government locked the natives up in reserves and murdered the leader of the last rebellions they threw, M. Louis Riel, after breaking their promises for the province of Manitoba... They knew what was coming, it sucks that they lost because they went from the most influential part of the population to slaves in a matter of decades. The worst thing is, I'm sure they could have won with just a bit of help... But hey, who knows...
(Sorry for the English by the way, I'm French so I'm having a rough time explaining myself XD)
>>501739
This is correct but to expand on this statement. Inca and Aztec merchants were a mere 100 miles from overlapping in the early sixteenth century. If given another decade or so they would have been in communication with each other and Pizarro would have never stood a chance.
>>510128
Incas wouldn't have been immediately on friendly terms with Aztecs.
>>510247
This is not a fact. They would have been in communication nonetheless.
>>506023
You do know trenches were used in siege warfare long before gunpowder was invented....right?
>>510318
And so? They would have exchanged some crops, Aztecs would have gained Bronze, Incas would have gained writing. And then what?
It is not like Atahualpa hadn't heard of these mysterious pale men in metal armor when they met in Cajamarca and assumed they were friends. Atahualpa was clearly trying to capture the Conquistadores, while keeping some semblance of honor by respecting their rules.
>>506018
>Understand this.
Are you fucking stupid or legitimately retarded?
This is a thread for discussing HYPOTHETICAL scenarios, NOT what factually happened.
In this HYPOTHETICAL scenario I concocted. The Inca are unified, concretely and fully.
DON'T FUCKING ACT LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW THIS. BECAUSE I'VE WRITTEN IT LITERALLY DOZENS OF FUCKING TIMES, I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED THIS SO YOU HAVE TO BE THE STUPIDEST FUCKING NIGGER IN DETROIT TO SERIOUSLY BELIEVE YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND YOUR BULLSHIT HERE.
YOU ARE NOT MISUNDERSTANDING ANYTHING, IT WASN'T TRICKY TO UNDERSTAND, IT WASN'T MISLEADING, IT WASN'T SUBTLE IT WAS FLATLY STATED THAT X, Y AND Z WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE INCA IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL AND FICTITIOUS SCENARIO AND AMONG THE THINGS LISTED WAS CIVIL AND MILITARY UNITY THE EXTENT OF WHICH WAS FURTHER SPECIFIED.
SO WHY IN THE FUCK
WHY IN THE FLYING FUCK
WOULD YOU NOW WRITE THIS?!?!?
>>506018
>Inca were disliked and the reason it was so easy for the Spanish to find these allies and the reason they didn't have to actually have a proper war with the Inca was because the Inca were having a civil war.
WHY IN THE FUCKING SHIT DOES THIS MATTER YOU RETARDED FUCK PILLOW? THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR, THERE IS NO CRISIS OF SUCCESSION.
HOW IN THE FUCK COULD YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS YOU INBRED SHIT?
Answer:
You did understand it, you just flipped the fuck out about being wrong about how the Spanish would have responded to that, that you're now going full retard.
What in the flying FUCK, is wrong with you?
>>510346
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca
I mean, Atahualpa had first heard of the Spaniards months before. He might have not seen the cannons in action before, but he would have surely heard about the armor and horses.
>>510360
and yes, I mad
>>505304
Only on the eastern half of America. There are many pure natives or close to pure natives in Canada, the western half of America, and in Mexico and Central America
>>504975
Jesus christ
>>504975
Wow man
